
Mark, Martha's Brother
I am normally a big fan of Ellen Degeneres. She tries to do good things and we share the same taste in comfortable shoes, but I find her actions over the past few days to be simply deplorable.
The basic story is that on September 20th (less than a month ago) Ellen and her family adopted a dog through Mutts and Moms only to find out that the dog was not a good fit for her home. At the time of the adoption, Ellen signed a contract stating that if for any reason the dog did not work out, she would return the dog to the shelter. This is standard language in most pet adoption contracts. I signed a similar statement when Martha came to live with me. The reason shelters include this language is for the safety of the dog. As we all know from the recent Michael Vick scandal, not everyone has the best intentions in regards to the treatment of animals. That the shelter requires you to bring the dog back is practically a service to the adopter who ends up with an unwanted dog.
According to Ellen, she spent over three thousand dollars having someone else train the dog so that it could acclimate to its new surroundings. (That could be part of the problem right there. When you adopt a dog, the best thing to do is to bond directly with it and do training together – not pay someone else to do it for you. An owner needs training as much as the dog. Spending money on a dog does not equal love or effort.)
At any rate, after a mere two weeks Ellen decided the dog had "too much energy and [was] too rambunctious." (I think Ellen is now saying it didn't get along with her cats.) Anyone who's owned a rescue dog knows that they don't start out perfect. Some have lived on the streets, been abused/neglected, or shuttled from home to home. The lack of continuity in their lives sometimes causes behavioral issues that can be very stressful for the new owners as well as the dogs.
If you read the posts from last April, you'll remember that Martha had her problems. She'd go for long walks without a potty break only to come through the door and take a whiz in my living room. She had severe separation anxiety and cried whenever I got out of her sight. She tagged so closely that I tripped over her constantly. She chewed. She destroyed. Her energy and nervous behavior was tremendous. Today, she's a great dog, but it took over three months (and lots of love, patience, and work) for her to fully adjust and feel comfortable in her new environment.

Cutie, cutie, cutie!
Instead of returning the dog to the shelter as her contract specified, Ellen gave it away to a different family. The shelter, upon learning this, went and retrieved the dog. I’m not saying I agree with what the rescue group did. There are quite a few rescues with such strict standards that you sometimes wonder if they are doing the right thing. When looking for Martha I remember one rescue made adopters sign a contract saying that they would only feed the dog certain brands of dog food. I thought that was a little extreme, and as such, I chose not to seek a dog from that rescue.
Maybe it’s just the future attorney in me, but I don’t feel particularly sympathetic to Ellen. She didn’t do her homework. She signed a contract and then she violated the terms. She paid someone else to train the dog rather than make a personal effort. When things didn’t (immediately) work out, she dumped the dog, and now she’s crying foul. She had the gall to use her show and her name as a vehicle to malign the Mutts and Moms, going on the air sobbing and begging M&M to return the dog to its new home.
Mutts and Moms removed the dog from the new home due to the ages of the children in the family. Ellen claims not to have read the contract (even though this was the second dog she received from M&M that she didn't want) nor known of the return policy and/or rules regarding children. (I remember from viewing M&M’s website that it was very clear they didn’t want small dogs in homes with small children.) I don’t agree with that policy, but it is definitely the shelter’s prerogative to make that demand.
Mutts and Moms has now deactivated their website because they’ve been inundated with vicious threats and emails as a result of Ellen’s actions. Independent rescues like Mutts and Mom provide a great need. Often times these places have contacts at the local pounds and are called when a dog is near euthanasia. They rescue as many good dogs as they can, farm them out to foster home volunteers, and typically operate on donations. They give dogs like Martha a second chance. For the last couple of days, Ellen’s been pleading for the shelter to return the dog to the second family saying, “This dog had a home and now it has no home.”
Shut up, Ellen. You want to talk about dogs with no homes? Every day that you keep whining is another day that Mutts and Moms can’t place the other dozens of dogs that they’re trying to save. In addition, hoards of people are now saying horrible things about dog rescues with stringent standards. The fact remains that if these rescues didn't exist thousands and thousands more animals would be euthanized each year. We all feel bad for the little girls involved, but you've taken a bad situation and made it worse. This was your fault, and if you didn’t agree with the terms you should have gone somewhere else. Stop making little mutts like Martha suffer for your actions.

11 comments:
Wow, small world. I hope that the shelter stays open. The real losers are the animals who could lose out on good homes. I was so inspired by your petfinder link I added one to my blog. Mine is for cats though as that is all we've adopted so far.
WORD on this post. I've been rolling my eyes at Ellen for two days.
I usually like Ellen, but this pisses me off, too. In fact, I wonder if she personally adopted the animal. When we adopted our cat, they basically beat us over the head about the "return clause." No way do you adopt and get out the door not understanding that. Geez.
That said, couldn't the agency just have done a home visit or something to see if the new family was appropriate? I don't know enough about the story to know, but removal seems harsh. Lot of that going around right now...
Amen.
I've been thinking this myself as well. Ellen messed up. She violated the terms of her contract. As an experienced dog rescuer and volunteer for a rescue org there is no way that you can get through the adoption process without being told at least a dozen or two times about the return policy. She probably meant well but she still messed up.
I sincerely hope that Mutts & Moms is able to get back to the important work that they do as soon as possible.
I'll guarantee you that she takes her entertainment-related contracts seriously. Why not the same for a member of your family? It's a shame that she is single-handedly destroying such an important and much-needed service for all the abandoned animals out there.
I think both sides here are in the wrong. Ellen certainly should have been more in tune with the adoption contract, and as such, if she felt that the dog wasn't a good fit for her and if she took the time to find a new home for the dog, why not go back to Mutts and Moms and explain the situation and see if they would have consented to the transfer? If they said no, that's their perogative, end of story. One would hope, in a perfect world, it would have been a win-win for all involved if Ellen had indeed found a loving home for the dog.
That being said, I don't know anything about the home situation of Ellen's hairdresser but if she has little girls who fell in love with the dog (and if the home is a loving environment where the dog will be taken care of) is Mutts and Moms really doing the right thing by repossessing the dog like it is a piece of property rather than a family member? It seems like someone at the organization got pissed off at Ellen and decided to perhaps go a bit too far.
Finally, while I think it makes sense for there to be a public push for the shelter to reconsider its decision it seems totally ridiculous that people have threatened Mutts and Moms so much that they have had to shut down operations. They're an *animal shelter* they're doing good work, though they may be taking some of their requirements a bit too seriously, this seems like the utterly wrong result.
I highly disapprove of Mutts and Moms, Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun's actions. They acted on impulse with vengeance on the goodhearted-ness and best interest between a celebrity and deserving children; not with empathy or forethought. In researching the web, PETA, Humane Society, BBB, and SPCA historical information, these owners have not proven themselves respectful or caring. In fact they show spite, more than anything. Reviewing everything to date re. Marina. She still doesn't show any emotion for the human bond between animal and a well deserving family. A reasonable human would not act on impulse driven by a bogus contract but allowed time for review and reasses the situation. A responsible business owner would have responded by now to the media, attorneys, and press with a RESOLUTION and not hiding and REACTING with negativity. When one appears as a villain one would naturally want to disarm the situation; not in this case. Nothing on the news has touched me in such a way that i would be actually reaching out and being an activist.
This is Marina's quote: “Celebrities you know, they, they get preferential treatment. They have lots of money. They go into a restaurant they get a table.”
Look close at her glasses "Channel". I try not to be judgemental but something doesn't seem right.
I never said I agreed with Mutts & Mom’s actions, just that they were in their wherewithal to do what they did. I imagine that after Ellen got rid of two different dogs within a short period of time, the owners decided that they’d had enough. If I were Mutts & Moms, I’d feel a little taken advantage of at this point. Also, I think going on the show and crying about it to the entire public was dirty pool. I would feel pretty defensive about celebrity using their pulpit in order to shame me into doing something.
On its face, it appears that it might have been best for the dog to be left at the home, but really, who knows what the situation is? There might have been some reason the dog was removed and the owners seem pretty adamant about the ‘no kids’ policy. The fact remains that M&M took responsibility for this dog and rescued him from what was probably a certain death, and it’s within their discretion to place the dog as they see fit. Do I think it’s a bad rule? Yes. Is it my business to tell them how to run their adoptions? Absolutely not. If people disagree, they are always free to go to a shelter. I had to get my dog from a shelter because I didn’t have a fenced yard or past experience with dogs.
People who run rescues see dogs everyday that have been promised a good home only to receive neglect and abuse. As for business practices, they don’t rescue dogs because it’s lucrative – it’s not. They do it because they feel compelled to protect the rights of the innocent. Driving these type of people into the ground because they didn’t do exactly what you wanted is pretty vengeful – and ridiculous when the rescue’s general objective is to do good. Maybe they didn’t do the best thing is this situation, but I’m sure there are hundreds of happy dogs that wouldn’t exist without them.
I do wish the children could have kept the dog, but I feel like Ellen with all of her hullabaloo has caused more damage than Mutts and Moms. And regardless of who’s wrong and who’s right (as both sides have acted poorly it seems), people really should be focusing on the dogs. Yes, dogs, as in, not just the one dog Iggy, but all the dogs sitting in rescues that are being harmed as a result of this situation.
no work today and no blog? phooey.
Life costs so much less and there's so much hullabaloo when people have lawyers check everything they even think about signing.
I'm not turning litigious - just experiencing how much a little lawyer action can contribute to keeping the peace and maintaining a bit of dignity.
I have a friend who works for a shelter, and there's probably a good reason that M&M has a no-children clause. Young children don't always know how to treat animals, and animals with a history of mistreatment, neglect, and abuse can react in "unpredictable" ways even to good treatment. And you can bet that if a child gets bitten by a rescue dog, that family is going to have the dog put down, or returned to the shelter anyway. It's probably easier for them to say no kids and wait for an adult household than do assessments on the kids every time and take that risk.
Whether the owners have a vendetta against celebrity or not, it's not an unreasonable position in general.
Post a Comment